changes in our government structures and processes, without adequate preparation, could easily backfire.
On
I have on earlier occasions voiced criticism about
the manner in which the administration has presented the follow-up to the 1984 proposals, particularly their reticence in fully explaining the need for subsequent modifications. the other hand, I believe that Government has been scrupulous in reflecting the current situation of and in Hong Kong, and I
am convinced that the Governments both here and in the United
Kingdom - are acting in good faith and in the public interest, as that interest is perceived. Accusations of "betrayal" and "sell-out" are therefore totally irresponsible and wholly
demagogic in nature. At best these attacks evidence the naïveté of people inexperienced in affairs of state; but they are also indicative of a remarkable inability to accept and
adjust to changing circumstances and to seek workable solutions
on the basis of consensus.
This is regrettable but perhaps unavoidable and of
course does not mean that differing views and their dissemination should be stifled, or that we can disregard sincere expressions of disappointment which undoubtedly are now, part of the political landscape of Hong Kong. Plurality of. opinion' unrestrained in expression is one of the hallmarks of a free society, and we must ensure that the authorities in China also understand that people in Hong Kong see its preservation as a major test of the efficacy of the "two systems" arrangement for Hong Kong, and that it is not a sign of disloyal or unpatriotic behaviour or of hostile intent. is particularly important as we approach the time of public debate' on the first draft of the Basic Law. By the way, since it is one of the White Paper's stated objectives to assure that "the system in place before 1997 should permit a smooth transition in 1997 and a high degree of continuity thereafter" we are effectively already debating aspects of the future Basic Law today and tomorrow.
This